GPA is Not Simple Edits and Vallco EIR is Too Early, by Peggy

Peggy's letter raised some important questions that Vice Mayor tried ask the staff to clarify on June 16, 2015:
2. Oversight and open bidding – This is a huge and very important development project in Cupertino. We all want it to succeed. Selecting the right company is critical.

a. P. 16, Task 5, says they will bill for meetings starting March 2015. How can they bill for work done before they have been approved by the City Council?

b. Transportation Impact Analysis – data collection before May 31, 2015 (p. 30, Task 2-Data Collection) – was this done before the consultant and the scope was approved by the City Council?

c. In the rush to get this “done”, are steps being skipped?
 

The staff promised to discuss the matter and provide answers to Peggy after the meeting. But the staff has not been able to answer these questions directly to Peggy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peggy Griffin
Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 6:26 PM
Subject: EIR for Specific Plan and Vallco
To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang, City Council Members and City Clerk,

 

I am writing this to express my deep concern over starting the EIR process for Vallco for several reasons:

 

1.      The issues revolving around the December adoption of Resolution 14-211 need to be resolved first.  The residents of Cupertino and the City Council expressed concern over what exactly is our general plan!  As far as the residents are concerned, we do not have a valid general plan.  The City Council directed the Staff to produce a red-lined version between the 2005 General Plan and the 2040 Community Vision document because the Council wanted to know exactly what they adopted . 

The documents produced were not red-lined versions.  Even so, the comparison tables created by the Staff show clearly that Community Vision 2040 was way more than “clean-up” and changes required by state law

a.      There are 2 new chapters that have not even been reviewed!

b.      Another new chapter (Chapter 2 Specific Plan Areas) that was not even mentioned in the staff comparison tables.

c.      The Introductions in both versions have not been compared.  They list the “guiding principles” for the rest of the document.  All 12 have been “edited”. 

d.      The word “edited” is used throughout the comparison tables to justify changes that were not as a result of state law or “clean-up”. 

e.      Massive numbers of new goals, policies, strategies, etc.

2.      Oversight and open bidding – This is a huge and very important development project in Cupertino.  We all want it to succeed.  Selecting the right company is critical.  Having the same consultants appear multiple times for various projects in Cupertino leads people to start to question just how open and competitive the bidding process is on this type of contract.  How many bids were there?  Are they the best qualified company?

a.      P. 16, Task 5, says they will bill for meetings starting March 2015.  How can they bill for work done before they have been approved by the City Council?

b.      Transportation Impact Analysis – data collection before May 31, 2015 (p. 30, Task 2-Data Collection)– was this done before the consultant and the scope was approved by the City Council?

c.      In the rush to get this “done”, are steps being skipped?

3.      Scope of the EIR:

a.      Vallco specific plan – Why is the EIR consultant creating this?  Shouldn’t this be community lead?  Shouldn’t Cupertino come up with the specific plan, not a consultant or a developer?  There’s no community input!  They’re going to create the specific plan then do an EIR on it?  When does the community have input-when it’s done?  Shouldn’t the specific plan exist BEFORE an EIR is done?  This process is backwards!

b.      Traffic – school is out!  The traffic pattern has significantly changed.  People are on vacation.  There’s no school traffic in the AM or PM.  This needs to be done when school is in session.

c.      Utilities and Service Systems (p10) – sewer capacity assumptions assume everything is adequate from ‘Cupertino Square’ so no modeling will be done!  They are adding housing and office and we know we’re at the limit already.  Shouldn’t there be modeling done?

d.      Transportation Impact Analysis – data already collected

                                                    i.     When was the data collected?  During what periods (summer, winter, etc)?

                                                   ii.     Collecting data before May 25, 2015 (Memorial Day) - Was data collected prior to this work being approved by the City Council?

e.      Parking – p. 35, Task 11-Evaluate Parking Supply – using…”shared parking”…In a previous City Council meeting, (can’t recall specifics) I recall one of the city council members stating that “shared parking” does not work.  The Panera area is an example of it’s failure.  Please do not use shared-parking to analyze the availability of adequate parking.

 

ASKING:  I am asking the City Council to instruct the staff to

1.      Scope of the EIR – take more time and solicit input from the community on the scope of the EIR.  This is a very important project for Cupertino.  Let’s do it right!
2.      Selection of the EIR consultant – solicit bids and vet out the respondents

 

ASKING:  I am asking the City Council to:

1.      Look at the GPA Comparison Tables to get an idea of the magnitude of the changes that you approved in December.  It was not just “clean-up” and due to “state laws”.

 

I respect and admire your dedication to our city.  It is not easy to do your jobs.  These decisions and actions impact our city for years to come.  You, our City Council, are our oversight committee.  Please make sure the right decisions are being made. 

 

Thank you,

Peggy Griffin